Thank you both.
A DOH! moment - running 64-bit means (substantially? always?) that
you're running 64-bit apps. So no issue.
Unless, as Khalid points out, you're doing something special, like
outside the repository. Which, inherently, will say to me to keep an
eye on it / there might be issues. Probably not, but have an eye.
Or, as Chris points out (for some reason I wasn't thinking binaries
when I posted, I unconsciously slipped into gentoo everything gets
locally compiled when you bring it down, mode) if a 32-bit exe comes
down from the repositories (being the only version in the repository),
then all necessary extra bits will come down too.
And, over time, such need to run 32-bit anything will disappear as
anything not currently migrated moves that way.
I didn't mean to imply I was judging 64-bit Linux by XP64 experience,
only that it made me wary enough to ask questions like this up front /
beforehand.
Initially, I was trying to understand the rational behind running
64-bit on hardware that couldn't take advantage of it. The answer to
which seems to be there is no degradation and ultimately everything
will be 64-bit. So get on with it.
Thank you both.
Chris Irwin wrote, On 12/31/2009 12:00 PM:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:30, Khalid Baheyeldin <kb at 2bits.com> <mailto:kb at 2bits.com>> wrote:
>> As I mentioned before, I have been using Ubuntu Server Edition 8.04
> LTS 64 bits since it came out and it has worked fine on.
>> For desktops, I am typing this on a laptop with Kubuntu 9.10 64-bit
> with Firefox, Opera, Skype, Chromium, OpenOffice, ...etc. running
> without issues. Flash works, but is sometimes stable if left running
> for long.
>>> I run entirely 64-bit systems now, and have for several years (on Linux,
> anyway). I'm running Ubuntu 9.10 on my desktops without issue. Granted,
> I don't really have any 32-bit compatability stuff installed since I
> haven't the need. The only sticky 32-bit stuff is proprietary in nature,
> and the nvidia driver, flash (64-bit beta) and broadcom wifi drivers are
> the only proprietary bits I use and work fine on 64-bit (in the case of
> flash, I should simply say "works as well as it does on 32-bit").
>> From a brief look, it seems Fedora has a better 64-bit environment.
> Since they put 64-bit stuff in a different prefix (eg. /lib64 vs /lib),
> you can actually install plain, unmodified 32-bit RPMs. Using yum, you
> seem to be able to specify whether you want the 32-bit version of
> anything in their repository. You can say you want the 32-bit version of
> firefox, it will do that and fetch the 32-bit dependencies. Since it
> fetching the actual 32-bit RPM files, you get security updates for
> 64-bit and 32-bit packages at the same time (right when they are built
> and published). I imagine they do not do de-duplication, so you may have
> duplicate docs and resources, for example.
>> Debian and Ubuntu's "32-bit" packages are actually 64-bit packages with
> 32-bit binaries. There is a 32-bit compat package called ia32-libs which
> contains numerous 32-bit libraries within it, and iirc, is manually
> assembled by somebody (and thus may lag in security updates). I don't
> think it is as easy to take any arbitrary 32-bit package and install it
> on a 64-bit debian/ubuntu system (short of having a chroot). Since both
> 32- and 64-bit packages want to install to the same prefix, it will take
> more than apt simply understanding compatible architectures.. Also,
> ia32-libs is currently a 'universe' package, meaning it is not covered
> under the same support you expect from 'main' (again, important with
> regards to security).
>> Myself personally, if I really needed 32-bit compatability, I'd look
> more seriously at Fedora. Since I don't, and I am more comfortable with
> Debian systems, I stick with Ubuntu.
>> As an offhand non-Linux remark, don't judge 64-bit systems based on your
> experience with Windows XP 64. If you were to judge based on Windows,
> Windows 7 has an acceptable 64-bit environment similar it seems to
> Fedora in that any arbitrary 32-bit package will work (well, not 32-bit
> drivers, but that is to be expected). Granted the footprint of the
> system is somewhat larger as all 32-bit libraries are always installed
> in addition to 64-bit ones (whereas fedora and yum, for example, can
> fetch them on an as-needed basis).